From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Speed of keyboard macro execution? Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:46:06 +0100 Message-ID: <87egerjkn5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20151209163954.0cefcc7f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <20151209180343.5a67c0e7@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83r3iu9rvp.fsf@gnu.org> <20151210120051.6be8201f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87k2omciy2.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <20151210123312.39c417c9@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83lh929omw.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2omta6x.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83d1ue9lns.fsf@gnu.org> <87fuzat7ot.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <837fkm9ire.fsf@gnu.org> <20151210151631.3b07c461@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87twnqrqgx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87h9jqrpa9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <878u51swr0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87zixhqz44.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449965542 27438 80.91.229.3 (13 Dec 2015 00:12:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:12:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 13 01:12:21 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1a7uGx-0008J5-L2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 01:12:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53449 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7uGw-0003ut-Op for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:12:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60728) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7uGe-0003uR-BK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:12:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7uGd-0003HI-Ag for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:12:00 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52931) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7uGd-0003H9-7N; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:11:59 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38514 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1a7uGc-0006Vn-6D; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:11:58 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D5139DF990; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:46:06 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:56:41 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:196189 Archived-At: John Wiegley writes: >>>>>> David Kastrup writes: > >>> I think we're presupposing what users want, and that is no reason to change a >>> long-standing default. > >> I'm still waiting for a single example where the current behavior would be >> actually useful for keyboard macro execution. > > If I don't come up with an example right now, it doesn't mean that it's not > useful, only that I don't have an example. > > You're proposing a change to existing behavior, and I fail to see a > compelling enough reason for that change. Not only is the new behavior > not compelling to me yet, but the safety of the change (because it > *does* change how existing macros behave) is definitely not compelling > enough. Changing the default font will already change how existing macros behave. Does that mean that we will not ever change the default font of Emacs again? Since that would make visual line movement end up in different places than previously? > Asking me to defend why the status quo shouldn't be changed has > nothing to do with whether your suggested feature should become the > new default. Because currently keyboard macros become unpredictable as soon as line movement commands are involved? At any rate, it's obvious that there will neither be agreement, nor any example where the current mode of operation would be desirable. So we might as well let the matter drop. It's only tangential to the "Speed of keyboard macro execution" subject anyway. -- David Kastrup